Why is there a lack of media coverage of the Redress:Breaking the Silence Documentary

Antares35

stockshares wrote: »

The abuse can't be undone but getting justice for the abused can still be achieved.

It just needs political will.

The church must have something on the political parties.

It's not weird by RTE at all. Do you suggest it should be swept under the carpet and the abused should just put up with it and shut up?

Unfortunately that is what has been expected of victims in this country and not just among government and the institutions. I remember shortly after the scandal broke and there was a heated family discussion. I was in the room when my uncle told my grandmother that the local PP has molested him. Her answer was, "ah go 'way outta that, he was a lovely man". I saw my uncle break in front of her.

I have also experienced something similar when I told my own family about childhood abuse I survived. I was more or less scapegoated as the "trouble maker" for bringing it up and, when I became angry about this, I was an "elder abuser" and when I finally took to drinking to cope, I was branded "an alcoholic". Victim blaming can be insipid.

Nobody can turn back the clock and undo the abuse, but humans are resilient and everyone wants to be happy. I never wanted my past to define me as a victim, nor did I want to wear it as a badge of honour. Survivors can recover but other people's support and access to appropriate redress and justification are so crucial to that. Being silenced, and being denied the right to access justice are so destructive to the healing process. I can put my hand on my heart and say with complete truth that being silenced and vilified by those who should have supported me has indeed been the "second hurt" that's sometimes referred to, and in many ways, worse than the abuse itself. We didn't have our voices as children, and being stifled again as adults is incredibly painful.

tdf7187

Michael Martin gets an easy ride from the media, given he was in the governments responsible for the financial crash and also this indemnity deal.

Snow Garden

FrancieBrady wrote: »

2 major documentaries this week that feature Michael Martin's work and he breezes through an interview on SoR without a single question about it. He is allowed to waffle about another party's past though for as long as he wants.

RTE Bias? Go figure.

Completely agree. The deal that Fianna Fail gave to the Roman church in 2001 was incredible. The taxpayer essentially takes the hit for the Vatican's abuse and cover-ups.

Acosta

stockshares wrote: »

You can't pick and choose who you criticise on child abuse.

SF have Qs to answer too. Many Pedophiles existed within SF/IRA over the years and were answerable to nobody because of the power they held in their areas.

One of the many reasons I have never voted for Sinn Fein. But they didn't preside in government over decades of the most sickening abuse towards vulnerable children and others. Fianna Fail, Fine Gael and Labour did. Sinn Fein were not in government and sided with the church when the chance came to bring these evil scumbags to justice. Again that was Fianna Fail, Fine Geal, Labour and the PDs

Xertz

If you look back at Ireland in that era, there was a very blatant element of rather aggressive social engineering going on and it certainly parallels some of the eugenics movements that were going on in the UK, parts of Northern Europe and the US at the time.
However, it was adapted to catholic social teaching i.e. they didn't approach it quite the same way, they instead engaged in mass institutionalisation and seizing children from people who were deemed 'unfit parents' because they didn't meet the church or whatever establishments views were at the time.
We quite literally locked up women who were deemed 'unfit' for whatever reason, and kept them in slave labour, quite often preventing them from ever having families. I've also no doubts that we shunned people and ran them out of the country.

I know in my own family, several members ended up just leaving the country due to broken marriages, pre-marital pregnancy and also being gay. It certainly wasn't my family who exported them, but rather that life here was made so uncomfortable and so risky they opted to leave.
Without going into identifying details, one of my relatives had to more or less flee the country after her marriage broke down as her abusive husband's family were threatening to have her sent to a mental institution, which at the time was extremely easy to do. She ended up living in exile under a false name for decades and died only shortly after Irish divorce law came in and she was able to exit that marriage formally. She had a happy life abroad, but there was years of ducking and diving and she never set foot in Ireland again until the 90s.

We've also seen an element of racism in some of those reports on the institutions recently, where children were of mixed-race backgrounds were being put into special categories and so on. That to me sets off alarm bells that there was a lot more to this than just simple catholic conservative values.

I think we need to look at that era with a less Irish exceptionalism lens and accept the fact that we too had a rather horrendous history with something very close to eugenics. We had a line-towing establishment and an underclass of poorer people and misfits who were cast aside to the margins of society, denied educations and access to normal lives for all sorts of reasons.

I was watching a BBC 4 tv documentary series done on this topic in the UK and the parallels were remarkable, particularly around the use of institutionalisation of people who didn't meet the criteria that were being set down. It didn't go to the extremes of what happened in Nazi Germany, but it certainly inspired that evil movement and it wasn't exactly mild either - things like sterilisation were practiced against people who were deemed 'defective' in quite a few countries before WWII. Take a look at https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0008zc5 if you get the chance, it seems to be unavailable on the BBC iPlayer at the moment, but it's well worth a watch with the Irish context in the back of your mind.

I think in Ireland we like to think of ourselves as rebels, as an oppressed people that stood up against the establishment of the British Empire and all of that and to a large degree we are, but we also had a rather horrendously oppressive establishment of our own and one that flew in the face of everything that we would claim to stand for as a republic and as a country that was founded on a notion of freedom.

I just think need to examine that period, figure out what went on, place it in context and actually learn from what happened and how we will really ensure it will never happen again.

I know Ireland's changed and part of it has been a reaction to that stuff, but we really do need to learn lessons and ensure we never forget just what happened an why it happened. It's all too easy to just sweep it away into some tribunal or redress board. We need to know the horrors of our past or we risk repeating them.

What's important is we learn and we hold ourselves to the standards we claim to uphold and actually build the republic that we have claimed to be.

Acosta

Antares35 wrote: »

Unfortunately that is what has been expected of victims in this country and not just among government and the institutions. I remember shortly after the scandal broke and there was a heated family discussion. I was in the room when my uncle told my grandmother that the local PP has molested him. Her answer was, "ah go 'way outta that, he was a lovely man". I saw my uncle break in front of her.

I have also experienced something similar when I told my own family about childhood abuse I survived. I was more or less scapegoated as the "trouble maker" for bringing it up and, when I became angry about this, I was an "elder abuser" and when I finally took to drinking to cope, I was branded "an alcoholic". Victim blaming can be insipid.

Nobody can turn back the clock and undo the abuse, but humans are resilient and everyone wants to be happy. I never wanted my past to define me as a victim, nor did I want to wear it as a badge of honour. Survivors can recover but other people's support and access to appropriate redress and justification are so crucial to that. Being silenced, and being denied the right to access justice are so destructive to the healing process. I can put my hand on my heart and say with complete truth that being silenced and vilified by those who should have supported me has indeed been the "second hurt" that's sometimes referred to, and in many ways, worse than the abuse itself. We didn't have our voices as children, and being stifled again as adults is incredibly painful.

That's shocking. I can't imagine what it must have been like to go through all that. I hope you've managed to find some peace and happiness. Thanks for sharing.

Antares35

Acosta wrote: »

That's shocking. I can't imagine what it must have been like to go through all that. I hope you've managed to find some peace and happiness. Thanks for sharing.

Thank you I have battled a lot of demons but am definitely where I want to be right now, and have the most amazing, supportive partner who has rekindled my trust in men and made me realise that most of them are good people.

Xertz

I didn't directly experience any of it, but I remember a friend of mine in school had a single mom and she had a lot of problems. I am probably thinking back to the early 1990s

She really was very traumatised by something that happened her and one day when I was about 10 or 11 it all came flooding out when she told my mom and I ended up overhearing it in the living room. I don't think my mom quite appreciated how much information I was taking in, or at least wasn't aware of how much I was hearing.

She'd been in a Magdalene Laundry, although she didn't use that term, but I overheard all the whole history of how she'd fought to keep her kid against the odds and how much hassle she was still getting from various aspects of officialdom years later, and also how horrendous the conditions were, including allegations that babies were basically starved if their mothers didn't produce milk, having her hair cut off, being locked in a shed and all sorts of stuff. I'd say that experience probably happened in the early 1970s sometime, as it was in reference to a child she'd had who was considerably older than me.

Overhearing that was pretty much burnt into my memory for the rest of my life and probably why I wouldn't set foot inside a church if you paid me and have a very dim view of the establishment in general at the time both in the church and beyond.

I've also as an adult heard all the stories from relatives about severe beatings by religious and teachers in well respected academic boarding schools and normal schools and also stories of sexual abuse that happened to relatives of mine who'd be in their 80s+ now.

I doubt there's a family in the country that isn't in some way impacted by this stuff.

Raconteuse

padd b1975 wrote: »

Slap bang in "Bart's People" territory from the off I thought.

I know your schtick is to look as edgily cynical as possible and you won't hear a word said against the Catholic church.

But to make a crack like that in relation to survivors of severe childhood abuse is pretty ****ing warped.

tylercheribini

Statistically, and for a variety of reasons, child abuse victims anywhere goes unreported so you can be sure the amount of living and dead survivors is far greater than we know of.

Clarence Boddiker

Xertz wrote: »

If you look back at Ireland in that era, there was a very blatant element of rather aggressive social engineering going on

This is not going to be a popular opinion but we are right back in the midst of social engineering, except this time its the 'religion' of progressiveness that dominates.

Ireland is fast becoming a place where you dare not express an opinion contrary to progressive morality, just like back in the day you dare not express an opinion contrary to Catholic morality.

My personal opinion is that Irish people are prone to this kind of extremist adoption of value systems and it is being manifested now with progressivism in much the same way as it did with regressive Catholicism. In fact nowadays I view the 80's - 2000s as a golden period of the centre ground in Ireland, where all opinions were 'allowed' and debate was lively. We seem to be slipping back to the bad old ways.

Hotblack Desiato

What a load of utter bollocks

Try saying on RTE in the 80s that you were pro-choice. If you were old enough to be allowed to stay up late on a Saturday night then, you'll remember the gasps from the audience when a homosexual/single mother/atheist was on the Late Late and didn't think there was anything wrong with who they were!
There were protests outside when they had two lesbian ex-nuns on, that was in the late 80s

Go on Youtube and look at Pat Kenny's 'interview' with Richard Dawkins in the mid-00s, openly hostile, as for the viewer texts shown on screen they have to be seen to be believed

Golden period of tolerance, my ass

You can say whatever pro-church or homophobic or whatever opinion you like today. You just can't expect many people to agree with you, and you can't expect society and its laws to force people to conform with your view. But yeah, that's "intolerance" :rolleyes:

Hotblack Desiato

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why would asking him about the Redress docs have anything to do with SF?

You brought it up.

You wrote:

He is allowed to waffle about another party's past though for as long as he wants.

You're clearly trying to claim anti-SF bias.

FF, FG, Labour and SF are all tainted by these scandals and none of them seem to want to do anything at all about it tbh.

tylercheribini

We were a small, poor country just out of 700 odd years of colonialism, we never stood a chance when the Church filled the power vacuum. We are in no means unique in escaping an empire and then only to run into the arms of an even worse homegrown crowd.

Clarence Boddiker

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

What a load of utter bollocks

Try saying on RTE in the 80s that you were pro-choice. If you were old enough to be allowed to stay up late on a Saturday night then, you'll remember the gasps from the audience when a homosexual/single mother/atheist was on the Late Late and didn't think there was anything wrong with who they were!
There were protests outside when they had two lesbian ex-nuns on, that was in the late 80s

Go on Youtube and look at Pat Kenny's 'interview' with Richard Dawkins in the mid-00s, openly hostile, as for the viewer texts shown on screen they have to be seen to be believed

Golden period of tolerance, my ass

You can say whatever pro-church or homophobic or whatever opinion you like today. You just can't expect many people to agree with you, and you can't expect society and its laws to force people to conform with your view. But yeah, that's "intolerance" :rolleyes:

The late late show was extremely liberal for a supposed Catholic country, perhaps you're mistaking those who shouted the loudest for the majority opinion. Late late show viewers and the types to write or text in do not constitute the majority opinion.

Hotblack Desiato

As for those who excuse the church by saying "what about policitians, gardai, judges, senior civil servants, etc" well a good chunk of them were either Knights of Columbanus or Opus Dei, and many more knew it was best for their career to keep their heads down even if they were not wholehearted fans of RCC control

Taoiseach John A. Costello said on his appointment in 1948 that he was a Roman Catholic first, an Irishman second. Sean MacBride, minister for foreign affairs sent a telegram to the pope:

"...to repose at the feet of Your Holiness the assurance of our filial loyalty and our devotion to Your August Person, as well as our firm resolve to be guided in all our work by the teaching of Christ and to strive for the attainment of a social order in Ireland based on Christian principles".

Pretty obvious where their loyalties lay, if it was a question of whether to favour the interests of the church or the interests of the people.

Garret Fitzgerald when forming his cabinet in 1982 asked each prospective minister whether they were a member of any secret societies. Of course, given what we now know about "mental reservation" what odds of them being honest?

Clarence Boddiker

tylercheribini wrote: »

We were a small, poor country just out of 700 odd years of colonialism, we never stood a chance when the Church filled the power vacuum. We are in no means unique in escaping an empire and then only to run into the arms of an even worse homegrown crowd.

The church didn't fill the vacuum, the power was handed to them by the state, both colluding with the consent of the majority of Irish people.

RandomViewer

Didn't watch it, I'm guessing nothing we haven't heard before over and over again.. if you keep drumming the same beat all the time nobody listens. It's cold but unfortunately the way things are.

Clarence Boddiker

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

As for those who excuse the church by saying "what about policitians, gardai, judges, senior civil servants, etc" well a good chunk of them were either Knights of Columbanus or Opus Dei, and many more knew it was best for their career to keep their heads down even if they were not wholehearted fans of RCC control

Taoiseach John A. Costello said on his appointment in 1948 that he was a Roman Catholic first, an Irishman second. Sean MacBride, minister for foreign affairs sent a telegram to the pope:



Pretty obvious where their loyalties lay, if it was a question of whether to favour the interests of the church or the interests of the people.

Garret Fitzgerald when forming his cabinet in 1982 asked each prospective minister whether they were a member of any secret societies. Of course, given what we now know about "mental reservation" what odds of them being honest?

No argument there, but its not about excusing the church but rather highlighting their many co conspirators. When it comes down to it the church did not have any military power, guns etc with which they oppressed the people. The ruled with and on behalf of the state and the bourgeoise class.

Hotblack Desiato

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

The late late show was extremely liberal for a supposed Catholic country, perhaps you're mistaking those who shouted the loudest for the majority opinion. Late late show viewers and the types to write or text in do not constitute the majority opinion.

Hahaha

It gave the appearance of being liberal because Ireland was so painfully backward.

Hotblack Desiato

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

The church didn't fill the vacuum, the power was handed to them by the state, both colluding with the consent of the majority of Irish people.

It was actually handed to them by the Brits in the last quarter of the 19th century.

SEPT 23 1989

tylercheribini wrote: »

We were a small, poor country just out of 700 odd years of colonialism, we never stood a chance when the Church filled the power vacuum. We are in no means unique in escaping an empire and then only to run into the arms of an even worse homegrown crowd.

There was no power vacuum

Our "patriots" willingly handed Rome the keys

Clarence Boddiker

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Hahaha

It gave the appearance of being liberal because Ireland was so painfully backward.

I dont agree, I would say the Late Late Show had a huge part to play in the liberalisation of Ireland.

Clarence Boddiker

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Hahaha

It gave the appearance of being liberal because Ireland was so painfully backward.

I don't know how old you are but my recollection of growing up in the 80s and 90s was not that of being painfully backward at all. The older rural generation maybe but my own ordinary middle class milieu (which was a sizeable part of the population) was quite liberal.

tylercheribini

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

The church didn't fill the vacuum, the power was handed to them by the state, both colluding with the consent of the majority of Irish people.

The Brits kept the Church in check up until then so yes,there was a vacuum for the Vatican to exert further post-colonial influence.

RandomViewer

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

I dont agree, I would say the Late Late Show had a huge part to play in the liberalisation of Ireland.

Don't know, still remember some mad wan on condemning American Pie around 1999, RTE let her on instead of telling her to go F××× herself

stockshares

tylercheribini wrote: »

We were a small, poor country just out of 700 odd years of colonialism, we never stood a chance when the Church filled the power vacuum. We are in no means unique in escaping an empire and then only to run into the arms of an even worse homegrown crowd.

Yes, it's never been a true Republic. After Independence Right Wing Conservative Catholics took control and ran the place as if they were Lord and Master.

They just wanted the power that the British had. They never cared about all the people of the country, only their own type.

The Politicians today are their descendants and are equally slavish to the Church. Few are genuine or have any nature or empathy towards people outside their own social set.

Fritzbox

stockshares wrote: »

After Independence Right Wing Conservative Catholics took control and ran the place as if they were Lord and Master.

Do you think anyone else could have been elected into power in Ireland at that time?

Clarence Boddiker

RandomViewer wrote: »

Don't know, still remember some mad wan on condemning American Pie around 1999, RTE let her on instead of telling her to go F××× herself

In fairness some mad wan ranting on is one thing, tens of thousands of parents happily allowing their kids to go to the cinema or rent and watch American Pie is another.

stockshares

Fritzbox wrote: »

Do you think anyone else could have been elected into power in Ireland at that time?

No, but I don't think people were prepared for how Conservative they would be and how in awe of the church they were.

One shower of Brutes was exchanged for another. It became one of the most backward countries in Europe and stayed that way until the late 80s.

The Republic is a dressed up rose tinted glasses Myth.